Super Samas missile barrage vrs Magic net.. Question.

[Lenwen]

A super samas launches 6.mini-missiles at a caster, the caster makes use of the spell Magic Net. According to the spells description it states there is no movement allowed. Would Magic net therefore be a great missile barrage stopper?

[Killer Cyborg]

A super samas launches 6.mini-missiles at a caster, the caster makes use of the spell Magic Net. According to the spells description it states there is no movement allowed. Would Magic net therefore be a great missile barrage stopper?

I looked in the BoM and RUE, and if the spell says anything about "no movement allowed," I'm not seeing it.

The answer to the question in general depends on how you believe magic net works, the details left out of the book.
Stuff left up to the GM.

IF it's a light-weight net that loosely drapes over the target, then it would likely have no effect.
IF it's a heavy net that loosely drapes over the target, then there's a good chance that it would pull the missiles off target, but probably not in the 60' between the far range of the spell and the caster.
IF it's a light or heavy net that effectively shrink-wraps around the target(s) instead of draping over them, that would likely make the missiles in the volley pull together into one mass, possibly detonating them as they collide, and almost definitely making them miss the mage. Although they'd still likely detonate close enough for the mage to be caught in the blast radius.

[Lenwen]

That is the which I played it as well the net closes like an pulled them in and they detonated still doing damage to the mage.

But I am still curious as to how you guys would have played it.

[Giant2005]

I'm sure the rules weren't considering the use of area of effect attacks and spells when they were made but the rules under missile combat do state that only one missile can be attacked at a time.
I think I'd use the same rules used to determine how many missiles get blown up when you shoot one of the volley and incite a chain reaction. I'd take that route because it is my interpretation that that roll is required to determine whether the missiles were close enough together to blow each other up - a magic net would also require them to be in close proximity.
So I'd roll a d100: 1-30 catches one missile, 31-60 catches half the missiles, 61-100 gets the whole bunch.

[flatline]

I'm sure the rules weren't considering the use of area of effect attacks and spells when they were made but the rules under missile combat do state that only one missile can be attacked at a time.
I think I'd use the same rules used to determine how many missiles get blown up when you shoot one of the volley and incite a chain reaction. I'd take that route because it is my interpretation that that roll is required to determine whether the missiles were close enough together to blow each other up - a magic net would also require them to be in close proximity.
So I'd roll a d100: 1-30 catches one missile, 31-60 catches half the missiles, 61-100 gets the whole bunch.

That rule doesn't account for area effect weapons that are capable of affecting the whole volley in a single attack.

A net would certainly qualify as an area effect weapon. The description says "10 foot area" and I interpret that to mean a square, 10 feet on a side resulting in a 100 foot area (a 10 foot area net is more appropriate for bunny sized targets than man sized targets).

The real question is whether or not the net is magically anchored in space somehow or if the volley will continue flying forward.

--flatline

[drewkitty ~..~]

Far as I know, when they use the phrasing "XX foot area" the dimension is how far across the area is. aka the diameter of a roundish effect area.

----------------
However, I like the idea of using the magic net vs a missile volley. I would give the volley a -6 strike if it was caught in a magic net.

[Giant2005]

I'm sure the rules weren't considering the use of area of effect attacks and spells when they were made but the rules under missile combat do state that only one missile can be attacked at a time.
I think I'd use the same rules used to determine how many missiles get blown up when you shoot one of the volley and incite a chain reaction. I'd take that route because it is my interpretation that that roll is required to determine whether the missiles were close enough together to blow each other up - a magic net would also require them to be in close proximity.
So I'd roll a d100: 1-30 catches one missile, 31-60 catches half the missiles, 61-100 gets the whole bunch.

That rule doesn't account for area effect weapons that are capable of affecting the whole volley in a single attack.

A net would certainly qualify as an area effect weapon. The description says "10 foot area" and I interpret that to mean a square, 10 feet on a side resulting in a 100 foot area (a 10 foot area net is more appropriate for bunny sized targets than man sized targets).

The real question is whether or not the net is magically anchored in space somehow or if the volley will continue flying forward.

--flatline

It halfway accounts for aoe damage. Not from the attack but the dmage from the exploding missile itself. As I said, I think the roll as to how many missiles explode is to determine whether they are in range of the first explosion and able to trigger secondary explosions or not. That does make the roll relevant: the magic net has a 10' radius, only two mini missile types and one short range have an area of effect smaller than that. If the missiles are flying apart far enough to the explosive radius of a missile that is greater than 10' doesn't cause secondary explosions, a Magic Net doesn't fare a better chance. It actually stands a considerably worse chance considering only the 10'x10' front of the net is effective but the blast radius of a missle has that relevant third dimension increasing the area covered.

[flatline]

I'm sure the rules weren't considering the use of area of effect attacks and spells when they were made but the rules under missile combat do state that only one missile can be attacked at a time.
I think I'd use the same rules used to determine how many missiles get blown up when you shoot one of the volley and incite a chain reaction. I'd take that route because it is my interpretation that that roll is required to determine whether the missiles were close enough together to blow each other up - a magic net would also require them to be in close proximity.
So I'd roll a d100: 1-30 catches one missile, 31-60 catches half the missiles, 61-100 gets the whole bunch.

That rule doesn't account for area effect weapons that are capable of affecting the whole volley in a single attack.

A net would certainly qualify as an area effect weapon. The description says "10 foot area" and I interpret that to mean a square, 10 feet on a side resulting in a 100 foot area (a 10 foot area net is more appropriate for bunny sized targets than man sized targets).

The real question is whether or not the net is magically anchored in space somehow or if the volley will continue flying forward.

--flatline

It halfway accounts for aoe damage. Not from the attack but the dmage from the exploding missile itself. As I said, I think the roll as to how many missiles explode is to determine whether they are in range of the first explosion and able to trigger secondary explosions or not. That does make the roll relevant: the magic net has a 10' radius, only two mini missile types and one short range have an area of effect smaller than that. If the missiles are flying apart far enough to the explosive radius of a missile that is greater than 10' doesn't cause secondary explosions, a Magic Net doesn't fare a better chance. It actually stands a considerably worse chance considering only the 10'x10' front of the net is effective but the blast radius of a missle has that relevant third dimension increasing the area covered.

If the whole volley has the same target, they will not be spreading out much at all unless there's a great distance between the target and where the volley is fired from. And even then, they'll have to come back together at the end otherwise most of them will miss the target.

--flatline

[Giant2005]

I'm sure the rules weren't considering the use of area of effect attacks and spells when they were made but the rules under missile combat do state that only one missile can be attacked at a time.
I think I'd use the same rules used to determine how many missiles get blown up when you shoot one of the volley and incite a chain reaction. I'd take that route because it is my interpretation that that roll is required to determine whether the missiles were close enough together to blow each other up - a magic net would also require them to be in close proximity.
So I'd roll a d100: 1-30 catches one missile, 31-60 catches half the missiles, 61-100 gets the whole bunch.

That rule doesn't account for area effect weapons that are capable of affecting the whole volley in a single attack.

A net would certainly qualify as an area effect weapon. The description says "10 foot area" and I interpret that to mean a square, 10 feet on a side resulting in a 100 foot area (a 10 foot area net is more appropriate for bunny sized targets than man sized targets).

The real question is whether or not the net is magically anchored in space somehow or if the volley will continue flying forward.

--flatline

It halfway accounts for aoe damage. Not from the attack but the dmage from the exploding missile itself. As I said, I think the roll as to how many missiles explode is to determine whether they are in range of the first explosion and able to trigger secondary explosions or not. That does make the roll relevant: the magic net has a 10' radius, only two mini missile types and one short range have an area of effect smaller than that. If the missiles are flying apart far enough to the explosive radius of a missile that is greater than 10' doesn't cause secondary explosions, a Magic Net doesn't fare a better chance. It actually stands a considerably worse chance considering only the 10'x10' front of the net is effective but the blast radius of a missle has that relevant third dimension increasing the area covered.

If the whole volley has the same target, they will not be spreading out much at all unless there's a great distance between the target and where the volley is fired from. And even then, they'll have to come back together at the end otherwise most of them will miss the target.

--flatline

I agree that at the firing point and at the target that they will be close together for obvious reasons. The problem is due to the time required to react and cast the spell, using it on the firing point is an impossibility and using the spell on the target point isn't particularly effective because they will all blow up in your face anyway.
Physically, the missiles have to be spread apart during their journey, or those rules on destroying the entire volley via secondary explosions would be entirely redundant. Consider the 31-60 roll that destroys half the missiles, destroying 3 missiles of a volley of 6 seems impossible if there is not a sufficient spread between them - the damage from the 3 destroyed missiles would easily be enough to breach the 20 MDC of the remaining missiles and destroy them too. The only possible way to justify those 3 surviving missiles is by them being outside of the blast radius of the 3 destroyed ones. If they are outside the blast radius of the other 3 missiles, then they would also be outside the radius of a magic net.

[finn69]

puts me in mind for a TW device using magic net and deflection or targeted deflection to handle missile volleys......OFF TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!

[Mack]

A super samas launches 6.mini-missiles at a caster, the caster makes use of the spell Magic Net. According to the spells description it states there is no movement allowed. Would Magic net therefore be a great missile barrage stopper?

I assume you mean for the caster to intercept the incoming missiles? If so, I'd assign a huge penalty for the attempt. Here's why:

1) Magic Net has a range of only 60 feet. The caster has to wait for the missile to get that close before firing the spell.
2) The slowest Mini-Missile travels at 500 mph. They will cover that 60 feet in 0.0818 seconds (less than 1/10th of one second). [Note - some Mini-Missiles get up to 1400 mph, lowering the window to 0.0292 seconds.] This is like trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet.

The timing for this is so incredibly difficult that I'd only allow it to work with a Natural 20 (even then I feel generous). I'd be willing to lower it if the caster used Beat Insurmountable Odds first.

[Lenwen]

puts me in mind for a TW device using magic net and deflection or targeted deflection to handle missile volleys......OFF TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!

Seriously.. thee best magic to use on missiles bar none... "little forSoce" it doubles the damage. And sends it back to the attacking source they do not even get a chance to Dodge or parry the attack. It's an automatic hit!!! At double the damage done!!!

so if they roll a nat 20 and do 1D6x10 on a barrage of 6 mini missiles they do damage of 720 md to ya well little force doubles that and sends it back to the source of the attack!!!!

[ShadowLogan]

A super samas launches 6.mini-missiles at a caster, the caster makes use of the spell Magic Net. According to the spells description it states there is no movement allowed. Would Magic net therefore be a great missile barrage stopper?

While I will admit I can see a slim chance for it to stop a missile barrage, overall I do no think it would be a good defense. Why?

Well this is a NET not a blanket. That means even if the rounds DO get into the area of effect of the spell (10ft area) they still have a chance to slip through the gaps in the net (the smaller the missile used the better chance it has of slipping through). Of course this raises the question of just how large the gaps are in Magic Net and if the gap size can be controlled when cast. Magic Net can ensare something the size of an adult human (used in the text), but smaller objects may be able to slip past.

Magic Net really does not prevent the explosive from going off (an individual can try to cut themselves free IIRC), and given the size of the volley, the right missile (due to blast radius) type, and the spell's range and A.O.E there is a good chance of still being cought in the blast (albiet at 1/2damage plus you can roll w/dmg still).

Given the speed of missiles you may not even have time to cast a spell (even a low level one) depending on the range to the attacker. Plus the requirement to wait for the missile to get w/n effective range of the spell. The missiles on the Palladium Missile chart travel at 10,000+ ft/sec. How many seconds does the character actually need to cast the spell in question? (I know low level spells can take 1 action to cast regardless of character level, but I am asking the actual time needed to cast it during that phase since we know the phase shrinks w/additional attacks.)

[finn69]

puts me in mind for a TW device using magic net and deflection or targeted deflection to handle missile volleys......OFF TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!

Seriously.. thee best magic to use on missiles bar none... "little forSoce" it doubles the damage. And sends it back to the attacking source they do not even get a chance to Dodge or parry the attack. It's an automatic hit!!! At double the damage done!!!

so if they roll a nat 20 and do 1D6x10 on a barrage of 6 mini missiles they do damage of 720 md to ya well little force doubles that and sends it back to the source of the attack!!!!

(raises head friom drawing board) little force is a temporal spell not commonly available thats why im using more common spells that are easier to obtain. (goes back to the drawing board)

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually, if you want to get technical and cheesy, you could say that a netted magic missile doesn't inflict any damage to the target even if it hits.
A Called Shot is required to hit a target in a magic net, and there is no exception made for explosives, which indicates that explosions don't penetrate a Magic Net.
Logically, this would work both ways- explosions cannot get in, and they can't get out.
A Called Shot is required to get in, and one is required to get out.
Since missiles can't make a Called Shot to get out of the net, and their explosions are blocked by it, there shouldn't be any damage to anybody hit by a netted missile.

Of course, I'd laugh this argument off if I was GM and somebody seriously proposed it. I just bring it up as fodder for rules lawyers.

[Faceless Dude]

This is as technical and cheesy as I can get:

The argument is moot, as the super SAMAS has no missiles to launch

But I'm assuming you mean Grenades.

[Mack]

This is as technical and cheesy as I can get:

The argument is moot, as the super SAMAS has no missiles to launch

But I'm assuming you mean Grenades.

I assumed it was wielding the mini-missile rifle.

[Dead Boy]

The description says "10 foot area" and I interpret that to mean a square, 10 feet on a side resulting in a 100 foot area (a 10 foot area net is more appropriate for bunny sized targets than man sized targets).

There's always been a problem with Palladium's use of the word "area". Sometimes it means diameter, sometimes radius, occasionally it seems to actually mean area. So there's a lot of room for individual interpretation there. The same is true for Magic Nets in that there is so much not said about their particulars, too much is officially unknown to give a canon answer to this question that holds any proverbial water. All we know for sure is it can snare human sized targets and larger, and attacks can slip through to snared victims without harming the net on a called shot of 16+. This implies it does have holes, so it is possible for the missiles to get through. Just how possible is completely a GM's call. Beyond this is complete conjecture for anyone to say.

That said, my two cents say it wouldn't work because missiles (and ballistic grenades for that matter) travel too fast, and the incantation/gesture requirements of even a 1st level spell takes a full melee action (3 to 5 seconds!) to get off. It can't be done fast enough with out some sort of technowizard mechanism to enable a rapid, possibly automated response. Remember, even Mind Melters working at the speed of thought can't always get a TK Force Field up fast enough in similar situations.

What we also know for sure is a person with a simple vibro knife can cut his way free in "two melee rounds", regardless of weapon/tool used and personal ability. Though no MDC is given for the net, using a 1D6MD knife, technically speaking an untrained 1st level nobody can get free by expending two melee actions in all, inflicting an average of 7MD. That said, it stands to reason if the net does snare a single missile or ballistic grenade, the impact might cause an explosion if it doesn't find a hole to slip through (GM's call either way). Such an explosion would instantly create a large hole large enough for the rest to pass through (if the 7 MDC or less hypothesis is true), though there is a chance the blast would also take out the rest of the volley as per the normal rues on pg 364 of RUE. If so (and there are a lot of "if"s required to make this happen), then the Magic Net defense might work, but wouldn't be any more effective than any other anti-missile defense. Remember, it's a snare, not a heavy wall or shield. In fact, because the official rules don't say attacks against snared individuals are reduced in MD by any amount, and because of the short 60-foot range of the spell, it's possible the Magic Net defense could work well, but still result in a blast that reaches the caster.

This is as technical and cheesy as I can get:

The argument is moot, as the super SAMAS has no missiles to launch

But I'm assuming you mean Grenades.

I assumed it was wielding the mini-missile rifle.

... which can only fire a volley of 4, not 6. My guess is he meant "Smiling Jack" Sam, not Super Sam.

[Lenwen]

Deadboy,

Anyone caught in the net can not attack or defend. Means they have to be cut out but someone not in the net.
It makes no difference between the net holes. So any ruling on such would be a home rule.

You also stated it as a snare. If indeed it is a snare effect on the missiles then by default the net would automatically drag all caught missiles twords each other which would mean they would all detonate upon crashing into each other.

Do you not agree?

[Dead Boy]

Anyone caught in the net can not attack or defend. Means they have to be cut out but someone not in the net.

It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in the spell's description that says people inside are paralyzed, only that they cannot attack or defend, and that it takes two melee actions to cut or blast one's way free. Nowhere in there does it state snared people (human-sized or larger at that) cannot affect self-escape. To claim otherwise is to grossly read into what's there.

It makes no difference between the net holes. So any ruling on such would be a home rule.

Maybe... maybe not. It does state that the net is effective against human sized critters or larger, implying small beings and such may be able to slip through. Hence, hole-size would be a logical factor to explain the rule.

You also stated it as a snare. If indeed it is a snare effect on the missiles then by default the net would automatically drag all caught missiles twords each other which would mean they would all detonate upon crashing into each other.

Do you not agree?

No, I would not agree. That follows the wrongful assumption that all mini-missiles/ballistic-grenades fly in a neat single-layer zero-stagger pattern (highly unlikely). It also assumes that not only does the net automatically work against small targets (implication is to the contrary), but also the first missile to make contact does NOT explode on impact, like they are made to do. Such a cushioning effect is not stated or implied in the spell's description, nor is even the concept of elasticity for that matter. So IF the sub-man-sized projectile is snared in the "net" (not sheet or curtain, but "net") and doesn't slip through one of its holes, with the projectile going several hundreds of feet per seconds, something is bound to go boom. The resulting explosion is what would matter more to the rest of the volley more so than the net itself.

π

[Lenwen]

Anyone caught in the net can not attack or defend. Means they have to be cut out but someone not in the net.

It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in the spell's description that says people inside are paralyzed.

You sure about that DB ?

Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to atack or defend.

Seems to be pretty cut an dry with zero wiggle room for different opinions .. They are helpless .. they can not defend themselves .. they can not attack .. and using a knife to cut your way out is an attack on the net .. which is prohibited by the very spell's "they can not attack" statement ..

Anyone caught in the magic net is helpess and unable to attack or defend.

Same exact wording. Zero wiggle room.

Two direct canon quotes .. from two different books. For ya DB.

and that it takes two melee actions to cut or blast one's way free.

And .. the actual quote from the books are as follows ..

Normal weapons can not cut through the net, only mega damage weapons, magic weapons, and magic can effect the net. Even then, it requires two full melee rounds to cut or blast out.

Normal weapons can not cut through the net only mega damage weapons, magic weapons, and magic can affect this net. Even then, it require a full two melee rounds to cut or blast out.

Notice on both direct quotes it does not state .. "one's way free" ?

Now you can attempt to form an arguement that says yes you can attack while in the net, except the spells earlier description of what you can and can not do while inside the net itself has already made any attempt at any arguement that you can get out by yourself .. moot ..

Or you can conceed the debate and admit only some one on the outside can blast or cut you out.

[Killer Cyborg]

.. the actual quote from the books are as follows ..

Normal weapons can not cut through the net, only mega damage weapons, magic weapons, and magic can effect the net. Even then, it requires two full melee rounds to cut or blast out.

Normal weapons can not cut through the net only mega damage weapons, magic weapons, and magic can affect this net. Even then, it require a full two melee rounds to cut or blast out.

Notice on both direct quotes it does not state .. "one's way free" ?

Now you can attempt to form an arguement that says yes you can attack while in the net, except the spells earlier description of what you can and can not do while inside the net itself has already made any attempt at any arguement that you can get out by yourself .. moot ..

Or you can conceed the debate and admit only some one on the outside can blast or cut you out.

It doesn't say "to cut or blast YOU out."
Just to cut or blast out.
Anybody but the person inside the net would have to cut or blast "through" or "in," not "out."
The quoted passage is clearly referring to the person inside the net freeing their self.

Also, the inability to attack or dodge does not mean that a person is completely paralyzed. All it means is that they cannot attack or dodge.
Anything that is not an attack or a dodge, they can do.
Such as cut their way out.

[Dead Boy]

Anyone caught in the net can not attack or defend. Means they have to be cut out but someone not in the net.

It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in the spell's description that says people inside are paralyzed.

You sure about that DB ?

Quite sure. You're reading waaaaay too much into the passage. Being "helpless" in this case means being easy pickings for those who intend to do the snared character harm.

Or you can conceed the debate and admit only some one on the outside can blast or cut you out.

On the plus side, don't think it isn't appreciated you actually cited canon material in an attempt to make your argument. I applaud the attempt. But as KC noted, there is no paralytic factor and the phraseology clearly points towards the ability to affect self-escape.

[Nightmask]

Anyone caught in the net can not attack or defend. Means they have to be cut out but someone not in the net.

It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in the spell's description that says people inside are paralyzed.

You sure about that DB ?

Quite sure. You're reading waaaaay too much into the passage. Being "helpless" in this case means being easy pickings for those who intend to do the snared character harm.

Or you can conceed the debate and admit only some one on the outside can blast or cut you out.

On the plus side, don't think it isn't appreciated you actually cited canon material in an attempt to make your argument. I applaud the attempt. But as KC noted, there is no paralytic factor and the phraseology clearly points towards the ability to affect self-escape.

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

[Killer Cyborg]

On the plus side, don't think it isn't appreciated you actually cited canon material in an attempt to make your argument. I applaud the attempt.

Good point- that was in fact an excellent citation of your source, Lenwen, even if I disagree about the interpretation.

[Lenwen]

puts me in mind for a TW device using magic net and deflection or targeted deflection to handle missile volleys......OFF TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!

Seriously.. thee best magic to use on missiles bar none... "little forSoce" it doubles the damage. And sends it back to the attacking source they do not even get a chance to Dodge or parry the attack. It's an automatic hit!!! At double the damage done!!!

so if they roll a nat 20 and do 1D6x10 on a barrage of 6 mini missiles they do damage of 720 md to ya well little force doubles that and sends it back to the source of the attack!!!!

(raises head friom drawing board) little force is a temporal spell not commonly available thats why im using more common spells that are easier to obtain. (goes back to the drawing board)

I can not remember which type of spell Little Force is .. but it is from the Native american magic system.

[Lenwen]

Also, the inability to attack or dodge does not mean that a person is completely paralyzed. All it means is that they cannot attack or dodge.
Anything that is not an attack or a dodge, they can do.
Such as cut their way out.

Ok they are all but paralyzed .. lmao !!

As I have proven they can not attack.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack . And is forbidden by the wording of the spell.

Or ..

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Or they should be able to slip their hands (smaller then mini missiles) threw an attack those on the outside. Now if they can not even do that then mini missiles or granades even are unable to do such as well .

Either way its going to have to be a pick an choose guys. You can not have it both ways. lol Which is your guys choice ?

[The Beast]

Also, the inability to attack or dodge does not mean that a person is completely paralyzed. All it means is that they cannot attack or dodge.
Anything that is not an attack or a dodge, they can do.
Such as cut their way out.

Ok they are all but paralyzed .. lmao !!

As I have proven they can not attack.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack . And is forbidden by the wording of the spell.

Or ..

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Or they should be able to slip their hands (smaller then mini missiles) threw an attack those on the outside. Now if they can not even do that then mini missiles or granades even are unable to do such as well .

Either way its going to have to be a pick an choose guys. You can not have it both ways. lol Which is your guys choice ?

You proved nothing here Lenwen. KC and DB are completely right on this.

[Nightmask]

Also, the inability to attack or dodge does not mean that a person is completely paralyzed. All it means is that they cannot attack or dodge.
Anything that is not an attack or a dodge, they can do.
Such as cut their way out.

Ok they are all but paralyzed .. lmao !!

As I have proven they can not attack.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack . And is forbidden by the wording of the spell.

Or ..

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Or they should be able to slip their hands (smaller then mini missiles) threw an attack those on the outside. Now if they can not even do that then mini missiles or granades even are unable to do such as well .

Either way its going to have to be a pick an choose guys. You can not have it both ways. lol Which is your guys choice ?

You proved nothing here Lenwen. KC and DB are completely right on this.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Since if you can't attack or defend because you're trapped in the net you really do have to explain how someone restrained by it can manage the movement necessary to cut themselves out. 'Well I don't read it as saying that they can't' isn't a good enough justification. Even a regular heavy net would be difficult to cut your way out of even if you had a useful weapon in hand when caught in the net, let alone a magical net wrapping you up where you can't move enough to even defend yourself at all.

[Mack]

KC and DB are completely right on this.

Agreed.

[Giant2005]

KC and DB are completely right on this.

Agreed.

Seconded or thirded or whatever it is.
To be able to cut "out" of something, first you have to be within that something.

[flatline]

Also, the inability to attack or dodge does not mean that a person is completely paralyzed. All it means is that they cannot attack or dodge.
Anything that is not an attack or a dodge, they can do.
Such as cut their way out.

Ok they are all but paralyzed .. lmao !!

As I have proven they can not attack.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack . And is forbidden by the wording of the spell.

Or ..

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Or they should be able to slip their hands (smaller then mini missiles) threw an attack those on the outside. Now if they can not even do that then mini missiles or granades even are unable to do such as well .

Either way its going to have to be a pick an choose guys. You can not have it both ways. lol Which is your guys choice ?

You proved nothing here Lenwen. KC and DB are completely right on this.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Since if you can't attack or defend because you're trapped in the net you really do have to explain how someone restrained by it can manage the movement necessary to cut themselves out. 'Well I don't read it as saying that they can't' isn't a good enough justification. Even a regular heavy net would be difficult to cut your way out of even if you had a useful weapon in hand when caught in the net, let alone a magical net wrapping you up where you can't move enough to even defend yourself at all.

It seems clear to me from the description of the spell that those caught in the net can't physically attack or defend against someone outside the net (although I see no reason why they couldn't use psionics or magic to erect a defense or, depending on the effect, attack). It also seems clear to me that someone in the net can cut themselves out of it if they have the means to do so.

Try to visualize what it means to be caught by a net. The net constrains your ability to move around freely (especially if it gets under foot), but unless your arms are twisted in the net, you could still access pockets to retrieve tools. Rifles and other large objects would be impossible to maneuver, but I might actually make an argument that a handgun could still be positioned and aimed through the net, but it would be penalized and your inability to hold it properly away from your body means the recoil (if any) might be painful.

-flatline

[SkyeFyre]

Just to point something out. It says it takes two melee "rounds" not "actions". That means it would take 30 seconds, and not the 6-10 seconds I've seen mentioned here. Also for the calculation of MDC of the net this means that the net is likely to have more like 28-35 MDC.

[Shark_Force]

Just to point something out. It says it takes two melee "rounds" not "actions". That means it would take 30 seconds, and not the 6-10 seconds I've seen mentioned here. Also for the calculation of MDC of the net this means that the net is likely to have more like 28-35 MDC.

i would argue that it's more like the full melee burst rules from a machinegun than like anything else.

[Nightmask]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Since if you can't attack or defend because you're trapped in the net you really do have to explain how someone restrained by it can manage the movement necessary to cut themselves out. 'Well I don't read it as saying that they can't' isn't a good enough justification. Even a regular heavy net would be difficult to cut your way out of even if you had a useful weapon in hand when caught in the net, let alone a magical net wrapping you up where you can't move enough to even defend yourself at all.

It seems clear to me from the description of the spell that those caught in the net can't physically attack or defend against someone outside the net (although I see no reason why they couldn't use psionics or magic to erect a defense or, depending on the effect, attack). It also seems clear to me that someone in the net can cut themselves out of it if they have the means to do so.

Try to visualize what it means to be caught by a net. The net constrains your ability to move around freely (especially if it gets under foot), but unless your arms are twisted in the net, you could still access pockets to retrieve tools. Rifles and other large objects would be impossible to maneuver, but I might actually make an argument that a handgun could still be positioned and aimed through the net, but it would be penalized and your inability to hold it properly away from your body means the recoil (if any) might be painful.

-flatline

Now see, I just don't see how you think that something that's restricting your ability to move to the point you're a sitting duck inexplicably gives you such ability to free yourself, especially in a mere 30 seconds. Nets by design and intent are meant to keep you from being able to move and access things that could help free you even if it's just reaching the edges and untangling yourself and this is a magical net we're talking about. While abilities that don't require movement like heat beam eyes might allow you to free yourself it shouldn't be treated like such a given that someone caught in the net can so readily free himself, it completely invalidates the entire point of the magic net in the first place.

[Mack]

While abilities that don't require movement like heat beam eyes might allow you to free yourself it shouldn't be treated like such a given that someone caught in the net can so readily free himself, it completely invalidates the entire point of the magic net in the first place.

I wouldn't characterize to two melee rounds of continuous work with a mega-damage weapon as "readily free himself."

[finn69]

puts me in mind for a TW device using magic net and deflection or targeted deflection to handle missile volleys......OFF TO THE DRAWING BOARD!!!!!

Seriously.. thee best magic to use on missiles bar none... "little forSoce" it doubles the damage. And sends it back to the attacking source they do not even get a chance to Dodge or parry the attack. It's an automatic hit!!! At double the damage done!!!

so if they roll a nat 20 and do 1D6x10 on a barrage of 6 mini missiles they do damage of 720 md to ya well little force doubles that and sends it back to the source of the attack!!!!

(raises head friom drawing board) little force is a temporal spell not commonly available thats why im using more common spells that are easier to obtain. (goes back to the drawing board)

I can not remember which type of spell Little Force is .. but it is from the Native american magic system.

paradox shaman whose spells are described as temporal

[flatline]

Now see, I just don't see how you think that something that's restricting your ability to move to the point you're a sitting duck inexplicably gives you such ability to free yourself, especially in a mere 30 seconds. Nets by design and intent are meant to keep you from being able to move and access things that could help free you even if it's just reaching the edges and untangling yourself and this is a magical net we're talking about. While abilities that don't require movement like heat beam eyes might allow you to free yourself it shouldn't be treated like such a given that someone caught in the net can so readily free himself, it completely invalidates the entire point of the magic net in the first place.

No, a net, by design, is meant to hinder your movement long enough for some guy to catch up to you and stick a spear in you. It's primary purpose is to keep you from being able to run away. It's secondary purpose is to entangle you enough that you can't put up much resistance when the guy tries to stick his spear into you. It was never intended to hold you securely or indefinitely although some dumb animals get themselves entangled so badly when trying to escape the net that if they aren't assisted, they'll die there.

Perhaps you are thinking of a straight-jacket and leg irons?

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack .

How do you figure?

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Huh?
How does it "prove" that there aren't holes in the net?


The fact that you can attack the person IN the net from the outside, by making a Called Shot indicates that there are holes.
As does the fact that it's a net.

Or they should be able to slip their hands (smaller then mini missiles) threw an attack those on the outside.

Because all holes have to be larger than hands or mini-missiles?

I don't think that hole-size is even a factor in the netted person not being able to attack- they're assumed to be entangled, unable to effectively aim any attacks through the net.

[Lenwen]

.. if they use an action to cut their way out .. that is CLEARLY .. an attack .

How do you figure?

Attempting to cut or blast your way out is not said to be an option in the spell's description. It can be cut and blasted to let people out is more what it imply's due to the wording .. key phrase --> No attacks or defensable actions.. <-- to take a knife or a gun an trying to cut or blast your way out is in fact an attack on the net itself.

You can not (with out house ruling it another way) place your explanation into the spells description an say "Lenwen your reading too much into it" when most people on this thread are actually reading more into it.. I am literally taking the spells description verbatium, no attacks means no attacks on anything .. to include the net itself.

Do not read anything into the spells description outside of what IS .. there .. and attempt to pass it off as canon.

It proves there are zero "holes" in the net .. with which to actually attack biengs outside of the net .. in which case there is zero chance missiles are able to "get through" the small holes ..

Huh?
How does it "prove" that there aren't holes in the net?


The fact that you can attack the person IN the net from the outside, by making a Called Shot indicates that there are holes.
As does the fact that it's a net.

That was well said. I can ceed that point to you KC.

[Dead Boy]

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

You do realize that key phrase you and Lenwen keep referring back to is an old cut & paste from when Magic Net was first made for PFRPG, right? "Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to attack or defend themselves." (PRFPG 2nd Ed, pg 195) I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the same passage can be found in the very first printing of the first edition too, which means it predates Rifts, Robotech, N&SS, TMNT&OS, Recon, and any game that makes use of modern/sci-fi firearms. In light of its original context, where the only ranged weapons were bows, throwing knives/darts, and crossbows, it would make perfect sense to preclude the possibility of a snared victim from using a ranged attack though the holes of the net and shooting. As the spell got carried forward into other games and settings, the mechanic came along for the ride (probably intentionally as not to mitigate the spell's effectiveness). But the prospect of affecting self-escape has never been off the table. Remember, performing a "melee attack" is not the same as performing a "melee action"; cutting one's self free with a vibro knife would constitute a melee action, not an attack.

Another thing to keep in mind. If the spell Magic Net did paralyze its victim(s), then why did Palladium bother to also make the spell Paralysis: Lesser (which, by the way, only affects a single limb)? In fact, if you flip through the Book of Magic, you might find something interesting. There are NO straight spells that actually inflict head-to-toe paralysis on the victim. Not one. Some have equivalent effects, like Agony, and some rune weapons and bio-wizardry goodies can inflict full paralysis, but not a single solitary spell has that express ability. So why would a level 4 spell do what doesn't even exist at the higher spell strengths, levels 1 through 15? Sure, there is Sanctuary, but that's a friggin' Spell of Legend! Baring the noted exceptions, generally speaking, the ability to completely paralyze a victim lays strictly in the realm of psychic ability, potions, and poisons.

[Dead Boy]

Try to visualize what it means to be caught by a net. The net constrains your ability to move around freely (especially if it gets under foot), but unless your arms are twisted in the net, you could still access pockets to retrieve tools. Rifles and other large objects would be impossible to maneuver, but I might actually make an argument that a handgun could still be positioned and aimed through the net, but it would be penalized and your inability to hold it properly away from your body means the recoil (if any) might be painful.

Excellent contribution, Flatline!

Just to point something out. It says it takes two melee "rounds" not "actions". That means it would take 30 seconds, and not the 6-10 seconds I've seen mentioned here. Also for the calculation of MDC of the net this means that the net is likely to have more like 28-35 MDC.

Not necessarily. As I pointed out earlier, that two melee round duration of effort is applicable to everyone, regardless of their level of capability. That means it takes a 15th level Phaeton Juicer in power armor enhanced with super speed to 30 attacks per melee using a heavy plasma cartridge machine gun the same amount of time as it does a 1st level non-trained vagabond who only has 1 attack per melee and a rusty vibro knife. As such using the two melee attacks the vagabond would use in that 30-second span of time, on average he would do 7 MD with his knife in total and be free just as fast as the ultra-juicer. Speaking strictly by the rules, that's the way it is. Ergo, an explosion affecting the Magic Net for more than 7 MDC should blast a big hole clean through. It's silly, I admit, but them's the numbers.

i would argue that it's more like the full melee burst rules from a machinegun than like anything else.

Yea, I'd agree with that. It doesn't have to make sense, it's just the game mechanic.

[SkyeFyre]

I was just quickly using the numbers already presented to give the MDC of the net. My main point was that it wasn't two melee attacks, and was two whole rounds. I acknowledge that my MDC values are just made up.

[Nightmask]

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

You do realize that key phrase you and Lenwen keep referring back to is an old cut & paste from when Magic Net was first made for PFRPG, right? "Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to attack or defend themselves." (PRFPG 2nd Ed, pg 195) I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the same passage can be found in the very first printing of the first edition too, which means it predates Rifts, Robotech, N&SS, TMNT&OS, Recon, and any game that makes use of modern/sci-fi firearms. In light of its original context, where the only ranged weapons were bows, throwing knives/darts, and crossbows, it would make perfect sense to preclude the possibility of a snared victim from using a ranged attack though the holes of the net and shooting. As the spell got carried forward into other games and settings, the mechanic came along for the ride (probably intentionally as not to mitigate the spell's effectiveness). But the prospect of affecting self-escape has never been off the table. Remember, performing a "melee attack" is not the same as performing a "melee action"; cutting one's self free with a vibro knife would constitute a melee action, not an attack.

Really doesn't matter how old the phrase is if it's repeated without change every time the spell is reprinted, there's nothing magically wrong about it because 'well it was written way back when so must be outdated'. Part of the benefit of a magical net is it can adjust to restrict like a normal net can't, fitting snuggly to justify the 'can't attack or defend' part of the spell description.

Another thing to keep in mind. If the spell Magic Net did paralyze its victim(s), then why did Palladium bother to also make the spell Paralysis: Lesser (which, by the way, only affects a single limb)? In fact, if you flip through the Book of Magic, you might find something interesting. There are NO straight spells that actually inflict head-to-toe paralysis on the victim. Not one. Some have equivalent effects, like Agony, and some rune weapons and bio-wizardry goodies can inflict full paralysis, but not a single solitary spell has that express ability. So why would a level 4 spell do what doesn't even exist at the higher spell strengths, levels 1 through 15? Sure, there is Sanctuary, but that's a friggin' Spell of Legend! Baring the noted exceptions, generally speaking, the ability to completely paralyze a victim lays strictly in the realm of psychic ability, potions, and poisons.

Don't be confusing me with whoever said the spell paralyzed its victims, I've only disagreed with the insistence that the spell allows enough freedom of movement to let someone cut himself out particularly if he didn't have any such weapons in hand when the spell was cast. It's a magical net, presumably it manages to fit tighter because it's magically binding restricting your movements to being ineffective.

[Lenwen]

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

You do realize that key phrase you and Lenwen keep referring back to is an old cut & paste from when Magic Net was first made for PFRPG, right? "Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to attack or defend themselves." (PRFPG 2nd Ed, pg 195)

Wrong Deadboy. I've shown both Book of magic as well as Rue .. as Ive quoted both books have the very same identical spell descriptions in them .

You can say I am using the old version from PFRPG, but the truth of the matter is .. I've used the spells description from Book of magic and Rifts Ultimate Edition.

[SkyeFyre]

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

You do realize that key phrase you and Lenwen keep referring back to is an old cut & paste from when Magic Net was first made for PFRPG, right? "Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to attack or defend themselves." (PRFPG 2nd Ed, pg 195)

Wrong Deadboy. I've shown both Book of magic as well as Rue .. as Ive quoted both books have the very same identical spell descriptions in them .

You can say I am using the old version from PFRPG, but the truth of the matter is .. I've used the spells description from Book of magic and Rifts Ultimate Edition.

They're not disputing you read it in the BOM or RUE, what they're saying is that the text in BOM and RUE was copy and pasted from PF. They're not disputing what you're reading, but like scholars who don't simply read, they are studying the text and showing that the very phrase can be traced back to PF and was likely copied over without much thought of being applied to a different setting.

[Nightmask]

Not seeing where you get the idea that the phrasing makes anything clear about being able to escape on your own. You're helpless, unable to attack or defend yourself. If you can't even move enough to point a weapon at someone attacking you and pull the trigger or as a mage unable to even cast a spell i don't see where you get the idea it's somehow self-evident someone's capable of managing the movements necessary to cut their way out of the net. Unless you're say a super with Alter Physical Structure: Fire where you can basically attack the net without having to be able to move at all I don't see how that guy in power armor is going to be able to use his Vibro-Knife to cut himself free or aim his laser rifle to shoot the netting.

You do realize that key phrase you and Lenwen keep referring back to is an old cut & paste from when Magic Net was first made for PFRPG, right? "Anyone caught in the magic net is helpless and unable to attack or defend themselves." (PRFPG 2nd Ed, pg 195)

Wrong Deadboy. I've shown both Book of magic as well as Rue .. as Ive quoted both books have the very same identical spell descriptions in them .

You can say I am using the old version from PFRPG, but the truth of the matter is .. I've used the spells description from Book of magic and Rifts Ultimate Edition.

They're not disputing you read it in the BOM or RUE, what they're saying is that the text in BOM and RUE was copy and pasted from PF. They're not disputing what you're reading, but like scholars who don't simply read, they are studying the text and showing that the very phrase can be traced back to PF and was likely copied over without much thought of being applied to a different setting.

Or they considered it and decided to leave it as it was, feeling it was applicable in all settings. Just because you want to insist it's somehow wrong because 'well they should have added in exceptions for these things and doesn't so it's just a cut-and-paste lazy error' doesn't make it so.

[Giant2005]

Interesting debate.
Imagine a missile in flight. The idea that a net tossed onto it would affect its flight path is a bit silly. It's not a wall or a shield, it's a net.

I think this statement wins the thread.
Everyone was too busy debating the mechanics involved that no-one actually considered how plausible the situation was...

[Lenwen]

It is understandable where your coming from .. but magic does not follow known mechanic's .. The net constricts around its target. This much is known due to its description. If launched at a single missile I would have no choice but to agree .. but the fact remains against the smaller types of missiles and volley's .. its going to constrict tight and will use each missile's mass in the volley to bring the other's off course.

[Lenwen]

It is understandable where your coming from .. but magic does not follow known mechanic's .. The net constricts around its target. This much is known due to its description. If launched at a single missile I would have no choice but to agree .. but the fact remains against the smaller types of missiles and volley's .. its going to constrict tight and will use each missile's mass in the volley to bring the other's off course.

Which would have even less of an effect, since there are now multiple rocket engines compensating for whatever effect a net would have on the missiles flight path.

Even sidewinder missiles (which I would consider LIGHT), typically weigh nearly 200 lbs and are 10 feet long (effective range 22 miles). How much is a net going to affect a 200 pound missile flying at mach 2.5? AI think the engine of a single missile would compensate for an extra 10 pounds (how much would a net weigh? A magic net might even be weightless) added fairly easily. Multiple missiles? With ease.

Cruise (long range) missiles can weigh as much as 3,300 lbs. Net ain't doin much, my friend.

As per magical constriction .. yep .. it would drag the volley off target and may just explode the entire volley as per volley rules ..

Course I am talking about short an mini missiles. The size of missiles your talking about are beyond the net's ability to .. well net ..